Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

@AllTideUp@louciaccia I think they would bring value. But I certainly see others as higher choices, because they bring brands AND new markets. But if you can't get UNC and a Virginia school, what next? Probably hold tight at 14 until you think you can. But I don't buy that FSU is a money loser, just probably not the biggest possible home run. I mean, do we really think the SEC would reject Texas if they wanted in?

This is definitely true. 50% of the Big 10 network revenues come from advertising, not carriage fees. Maybe the average fan doesn't realize it, but people that follow it closely do. I'm interested to see how the revenue sharing breaks out for that. This type of synergy definitely helps advertising sales across all platforms.

If you keep in mind that only a portion of network revenue, maybe not more than half, comes off subscriber fees, and the rest will be generated by advertising revenue, it adds a little blurriness to the issue of what expansion candidates might be viable (just like tiny Nebraska was the B1G's choice over larger states).

FSU and Clemson have bigger problems with the ACC than will be solved by playing a game that they already play. It will not help them close the gap any with the SEC schools to take part in an event which will benefit both equally. As if it really would benefit both equally when the SEC wins 10 of 14.

Sorry you are upset about it. To be clear, I don't think it's a "done deal" either, because it's never a "done deal" until it's announced. Pac 16 taught us that. And just because some proxy reps for FSU or Clemson are giving positive vibes to their Big 12 proxy counterparts, that doesn't guarantee anything anyway.

But to say the tail wagged the dog is to say that Haggard read the bloggers saying it was a "done deal" and so decided to speak up. What else does tail wagging the dog mean, if not that made up stories by bloggers caused FSU's chairman of the Board of Trustees to start exploring reallingment? I just think that's a stretch, rather than admitting the possibility talks have gone on and are far enough along to start bringing it public.

The most rational, simple explanation is that back-room unofficial talks have been going on for some time, and reached a point of progress that it was time to start bringing it out in the open so they could pretend that they were just starting. I mean, do you really believe it when Mike Slive said they never considered Texas A&M, let alone spoke to anyone, before Texas A&M called them out of the blue last summer?

So Haggard brought it out, and he and FSU's goofy leadership turned into a fiasco. That's a bit of another story.

I don't think you are really any of those things you listed. I just think you are defensive about not being willing to admit that some finge people (and it is more than just one Dude by the way) might have known about talks that have been taking place for some time.

You have given credit to the Dude for nothing more than judging fan sentiment, rather than acknowledging that some people may have been aware that unofficial talks have been going on.

Sorry to aggravate you, again, great job. Appreciate the support you've shown FSU for an SEC invite in the past.

I'm not calling anyone out for not believing it, or certainly not reporting it. Anyone who aspires to real journalism has a lot better responsibility than random bloggers and message board posters before they run with anything anyway. I just don't see anything to get defensive about.

What I'm trying to say is that a lot of real journalists (cough, Chadd Scott, cough) went further than just reporting that they hadn't heard anything, and called the rumors idiotic and the people who indulged them stupid. Of course I didn't see FSU to the Big 12 a year ago. But as the pieces continued to fall into place over the last twelve months (basketball expansion, FSU boosters credit downgrade, BCS revision with loss of AQ, ACC contract terms, FSU budget deficit, Big 12 contract terms, Big 12 GOR, etc), it made a LOT of sense. Not necessarilly that FSU would leave, but that they needed to talk.

Real journalists spoke with derision without knowing a LOT of the facts, and simply dismissed the possibility that someone without real creds might know something. Here's the thing though..."normal people" have always had friends in high places and known secrets that never made the press. But before the internet, they had no way to express what they knew.

I guess you can try to cling to the idea that because officials keep saying there have been no discussions, then there have been no discussions to date. Nobody ever lies in this game, I'm sure. I'm sure Texas A&M and the SEC never had discussions before the day they announced discussions.

What about the "fiction writers" that called the contract totals on the Big 12 and ACC contracts before they ever went public, did they wag the dog at ESPN? ESPN read some West Virginia bloggers, and decided the Big 12 should get $20M because of that?

Is it really easier to believe that some random bloggers and message board posters STARTED a major reallignment than it is to acknowledge that maybe some people that are not professional journalists have some connected friends?

Nobody expects you to have sources everywhere all the time. It's no skin off your nose if you weren't clued in on something hush-hush between Big 12 and ACC schools. You do phenomenal work here, and I consider you one of the most reasoned analysts of reallignment.

But I can't believe that you would take the position that because you didn't happen to know about it, then it could not have happened, and a much more unreasonable thing happened instead. It would seem easier and more reasonable to just say "Wow, that caught us all off guard. Kudos to the couple guys that had sources on this particular issue."

By the way, not accusing you of this really, but it seems like journalists who are basically saying that a single West Virginia blogger started reallignment would be granting them WAY more influence and power than just admitting maybe they actually did know somebody.

@Rob H Tennessee has been down for years now, and UGA hasn't won a national title in 30+ years. But the SEC is thriving. A conference who's financial health rests solely with one team is not a healthy conference. Especially if you are the one team. You'd think 12 ACC titles and two Natl championships would be enough. If the ACC needs FSU to be a top 5 team every year to be viable, that's a bad situation. And clearly that's proven to be the case.

I'm sorry, I respect the hell out of Mr. Sec, but this just isn't true. The issues that have been leading to this, primarilly the financial disparities, but also the growing dissatisfaction with scheduling and other issues, has been growing for years. This didn't just happen this week. Are you really being so myopic to think that because you weren't aware of the deficits FSU is running in it's quest to get back to elite football, that those deficits weren't real until a WVU blogger started typing? Really?
The signs have been pointing this way since the PAC 12 signed their deal...on that day it became clear that ACC leadership was badly outgunned compared to other conferences, and there wasn't a clear way out (save ND).
The SU/Pitt expansion just fueled the fire, by adding virtually no contract value, but snatching away a home game every year and sending everyone on even longer trips.
FSU also got a wake up call with having to battle Auburn to retain Mark Stoops from making what would be a lateral move. That's not a position FSU is accustomed to being in, losing coaches to lateral moves. Considering the raise he got was far less than what he was rumored to be offered, it seems obvious that the only reason held him was that Stoops considered a move to Auburn would delay the head coaching position that almost certainly awaits him in 2013.
Have you noticed that FSU is moving away from high profile home-and-home OOC games, to match the national trend? Well, that's the direction they are taking. And that FCS rent-a-wins now cost a half-million dollars? But that's the price for trying to play at the elite level. That didn't happen last week either.
The issue is, none of this stuff is new. Many people following FSU have see the writing on the wall for years. Everyone just kept their powder dry to see if Swofford might pull a rabbit out of his hat, and he ended up actually losing the hat.
Just because you (and rightly so as an SEC blog) were not totally clued into FSU issues, doesn't mean that those issues haven't been there.
Again, love your site and your reallignment analysis, it's some of the best. But like many other non-FSU specific commentators, you really didn't realize the depth of what has been building here for a while.

Don't be too defensive. People are ignorant if they don't understand how this works. Blogs and message boards don't have the responsibility that journalists do, so are going to have scads more bogus nonsense. However, because nothing has to be on the record or corroborated by a message board poster, some things are going to naturally hit those places before it ever appears in "legitimate" media. Every so often your cab driver's sister's boss is going to be right.
The main issue is how arrogantly quickly many journalists were to crush this story, simply because they didn't have the right source. I guess if I was a journalist, I would just keep my powder dry on this situation, not feel the need to insult people (not putting you in this camp).
It's a little worse, because the factors behind this, primarily the financials, have been in place for a long time, and the writing was on the wall. Dig a little below the surface, and there is a legitimate reason for a few ACC football schools to be looking for a way out. This isn't a rumor saying FSU and Clemson are dropping football and joining the Colonial. People paying close attention have known for years that FSU had revenue issues, and that the ACC was not serving them.
But a lot of journalists who haven't been following the trend wanted to dismiss it with arrogance because of the source, and because they didn't know enough to realize the underlying facts made this plausible.

The question I'd like from SEC folks is this...IF this did happen, and the Big 12 got Miami and let's say one of GT/VT/MD/LVLLE as well, does that bother you at all to have the Big 12 setting up shop in SEC territory? Not saying it should, but does it?

Does anyone think the SEC might try to preempt that by holding their nose and inviting FSU/Clemson?

Obviously, there is plenty of numbers still to come to light. Nobody expects FSU to move if the numbers don't add up.

But it seems extremely plausible to me that the additon of FSU+Clemson (plus maybe Miami+Maryland) plus a Big 12 Championship game would bump from $20M to $24-25M. That seems pretty realistic to me. That isn't even considering third-tier rights, which I tend to be conservative at, and figure MAYBE $2M. Although those could eventually be valuable, FSU has no experience monetizeing those things.

That's also not including the additional distributions from bowl games (ACC bowls are horrible), but more importantly the new BCS and playoffs. No AQ and no limits on participants from conferences puts the ACC in a bad spot if history is any indication. It would be difficult to imaging someone from the new Mega-Big 12 missing the playoffs very often, but it's hard to imagine someone from the ACC making it very often. And if someone from the ACC does, it almost has to be FSU.

Not excited about having to carry the conference at the distant fifth place payouts....

This contract far from satisfies most FSU and Clemson folks. $17M is probably at least $8M less than they would earn in the Big 12, and will be far less than their SEC peers. Just from an FSU and Clemson supporter position, this adds fuel to the discontent. That doesn't mean that discontent goes to the top or will prompt a move, but this has infuriated FSU and Clemson fans, not eased their frustrations.